was that " I don't believe"?. here is an excerpt from the shell theorem.

A corollary is that inside a solid sphere of constant density, the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero by symmetry at the centre of mass. This can be seen as follows: take a point within such a sphere, at a distance {\displaystyle r}

gravity goes down all the way, can remain constant above extreme dense masses, but will not go up, only down gentler. Reason being that the interior denser mass, like the core, is already a contributor to the total gravity. stripping the layers above it, will not increase the central mass. Only the enclosed mass generates gravity,
gravity goes down, time goes up.https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?
Of course pressure, energy also generates gravity, but it takes a lot of it. still, zero at the center, even in a black hole.
time wihtout formulae.

Think of it this way, to consider time dilation as only the frequency and time changing would be incomplete. To consider why the dilation occurs would be complete, so if we track back the action involved

a change in time is equal to the change in frequency

So then ask yourself what process is before a change in frequency?

I then speculate the change in the frequency is because something inside the Caesium is changing, hence we can now involve a change in entropy

I then ask myself what can possible change an entropy?

A different energy level can change an entropy

Hence my maths expression to explain the process.

ΔE=ΔS=Δf=Δt

A change in energy (E) of an entropy (S) will result in a change of (S) which will result in a change in output frequency (f) which concludes a change in time (t) .

Of course this is only an opinion and not any sort of fact that as been confirmed.

Stating that time changes does not require units and stating that time changes equal to a frequency that changes also does not need units. It simply explains the actions , the units are irrelevant. So why do you say it is stupid?

Click to expand...

Because saying 4=1/4 is stupid.

Very stupid indeed.

And what you are saying with these nonsensical expressions is exactly as stupid.

As I have explained.

But you do not - will not - understand maths, so there is no point in me wasting my time on this.

Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication.

There is a rather large problem with this "equation".
In physics, an equation must have equal units either side of an "=" sign, and your one just doesn't. That means it isn't an equation.
It says seconds are equal to cycles per second, equal to a number, which is equal to Newton metres. And that simply isn't true in the real world. Sorry but it's just wrong.

There is a rather large problem with this "equation".
In physics, an equation must have equal units either side of an "=" sign, and your one just doesn't. That means it isn't an equation.
It says seconds are equal to cycles per second, equal to a number, which is equal to Newton metres. And that simply isn't true in the real world. Sorry but it's just wrong.

Main article: Abstraction (mathematics)
Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying essence of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected, and generalizing it so that it has wider applications or matching among other abstract descriptions of equivalent phenomena.

Techniques and methods from one area can be applied to prove results in a related area

Click to expand...

Simplification and ordering[edit]
Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient.

Click to expand...

You are not simplifying things, you are over thinking the content I provided , to discuss in simple terms of math at my level of comprehension.

You are adding the content of cycles per second etc, which is not required in my abstraction discussion.

If you mean that to be an abstraction of a process, then what you're doing is abusing notation; most people understand "=" to mean "equals" or "is equivalent to". If you want to redefine well-understood notation you should say that's what you're doing.

On the other hand, you could use notation like A => B => C => D, although "=>" usually stands for material implication, in formal logic. You could also use "->" which can mean "goes to", depending on the context. Using "=" will get you into trouble with logicians and mathematicians, not to mention physicists.

If you mean that to be an abstraction of a process, then what you're doing is abusing notation; most people understand "=" to mean "equals" or "is equivalent to". If you want to redefine well-understood notation you should say that's what you're doing.

On the other hand, you could use notation like A => B => C => D, although "=>" usually stands for material implication, in formal logic. You could also use "->" which can mean "goes to", depending on the context. Using "=" will get you into trouble with logicians and mathematicians, not to mention physicists.

Click to expand...

I understand that the equal to sign will confuse some people,. The difficulty of understanding an abstraction is down to interpetation, but in this abstraction equal to is exactly what it is meant to be. You say use the >, you have just used abstraction but I could say you were saying greater than because of the ambiguity of use.
My abstraction is really simple , other examples would be

X=Y=Z

A=B=C

1=1=1

R³=xyz

[000]=[000]

[000]+[000]=0

I have loads of these, but you more than likely would not understand any of them.